Methodological Guidance Paper: High-Quality Meta-Analysis in a Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri D. Pigott ◽  
Joshua R. Polanin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Statistical Techniques ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Meta Analyses

This methodological guidance article discusses the elements of a high-quality meta-analysis that is conducted within the context of a systematic review. Meta-analysis, a set of statistical techniques for synthesizing the results of multiple studies, is used when the guiding research question focuses on a quantitative summary of study results. In this guidance article, we discuss the systematic review methods that support high-quality meta-analyses and outline best practice meta-analysis methods for describing the distribution of effect sizes in a set of eligible studies. We also provide suggestions for transparently reporting the methods and results of meta-analyses to influence practice and policy. Given the increasing use of meta-analysis for important policy decisions, the methods and results of meta-analysis should be both transparent and reproducible.

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 747-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy P. Siddaway ◽  
Alex M. Wood ◽  
Larry V. Hedges
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
High Level ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

scholarly journals A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e100135
Author(s):  
Xue Ying Zhang ◽  
Jan Vollert ◽  
Emily S Sena ◽  
Andrew SC Rice ◽  
Nadia Soliman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Persistent Pain ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Animal Pain ◽  
Trim And Fill ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThigmotaxis is an innate predator avoidance behaviour of rodents and is enhanced when animals are under stress. It is characterised by the preference of a rodent to seek shelter, rather than expose itself to the aversive open area. The behaviour has been proposed to be a measurable construct that can address the impact of pain on rodent behaviour. This systematic review will assess whether thigmotaxis can be influenced by experimental persistent pain and attenuated by pharmacological interventions in rodents.Search strategyWe will conduct search on three electronic databases to identify studies in which thigmotaxis was used as an outcome measure contextualised to a rodent model associated with persistent pain. All studies published until the date of the search will be considered.Screening and annotationTwo independent reviewers will screen studies based on the order of (1) titles and abstracts, and (2) full texts.Data management and reportingFor meta-analysis, we will extract thigmotactic behavioural data and calculate effect sizes. Effect sizes will be combined using a random-effects model. We will assess heterogeneity and identify sources of heterogeneity. A risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted to evaluate study quality. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots, Egger’s regression and trim-and-fill analysis. We will also extract stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal data to assess its correlation with thigmotaxis in the same animals. The evidence obtained will provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of using thigmotactic outcome measure in animal pain research so that future experimental designs can be optimised. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and disseminate the review findings through publication and conference presentation.

Medical visit time and predictors in health facilities: a mega systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 373-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sakineh Hajebrahimi ◽  
Ali Janati ◽  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Mobin Sokhanvar ◽  
Elaheh Haghgoshayie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Visit Time ◽  
Medical Visit ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Purpose Visit time is a crucial aspect of patient–physician interaction; its inadequacy can negatively impact the efficiency of treatment and diagnosis. In addition, visit time is a fundamental demand of patients, and it is one of the rights of every patient. The purpose of this paper is to determine factors influencing the consultation length of physicians and to compare consultation length in different countries. Design/methodology/approach MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched. In addition, references of references were checked, and publication lists of individual scholars in the field were examined. We used data sources up to June 2018, without language restriction. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version (CMA) 3.0. Findings Of 16,911 identified studies, 189 studies were assessed of which 125 cases (67 percent) have been conducted in the USA. A total of 189 studies, 164 (86.77 percent) involved face-to face-consultations. The effects of three variables, physician gender, patient gender, and type of consultation were analyzed. According to moderate and strong evidence studies, no significant difference was found in the consultation lengths of female and male doctors (Q=42.72, df=8, I2=81.27, p=0.891) and patients’ gender (Q=55.98, df=11, I2=80.35, p=0.314). In addition, no significant difference was found in the telemedicine or face-to-face visits (Q=41.25, df=5, I2=87.88, p=0.170). Originality/value In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all of physicians’ visits in 34 countries were surveyed. The evidence suggests that specified variables do not influence the length of consultations. Good relationship is essential to a safe and high-quality consultation and referral process. A high-quality consultation can improve decisions and quality of visits, treatment effectiveness, efficiency of service, quality of care, patient safety and physician and patient satisfaction.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Classroom-Wide Social–Emotional Interventions for Preschool Children

2020 ◽  
pp. 027112142093557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Luo ◽  
Brian Reichow ◽  
Patricia Snyder ◽  
Jennifer Harrington ◽  
Joy Polignano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preschool Children ◽  
Social Competence ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Challenging Behavior ◽  
Emotional Competence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Social Emotional ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: All children benefit from intentional interactions and instruction to become socially and emotionally competent. Over the past 30 years, evidence-based intervention tactics and strategies have been integrated to establish comprehensive, multitiered, or hierarchical systems of support frameworks to guide social–emotional interventions for young children. Objectives: To review systematically the efficacy of classroom-wide social–emotional interventions for improving the social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes of preschool children and to use meta-analytic techniques to identify critical study characteristics associated with obtained effect sizes. Method: Four electronic databases (i.e., Academic Search Premier, Educational Resource Information Center, PsycINFO, and Education Full Text) were systematically searched in December 2015 and updated in January 2018. “Snowball methods” were used to locate additional relevant studies. Effect size estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses for three child outcomes, and moderator analyses were conducted. Results: Thirty-nine studies involving 10,646 child participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review, with 33 studies included in the meta-analyses. Random-effects meta-analyses showed improvements in social competence ( g = 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.28, 0.56]) and emotional competence ( g = 0.33, 95% CI = [0.10, 0.56]), and decreases in challenging behavior ( g = −0.31, 95% CI = [−0.43, −0.19]). For social competence and challenging behavior, moderator analyses suggested interventions with a family component had statistically significant and larger effect sizes than those without a family component. Studies in which classroom teachers served as the intervention agent produced statistically significant but smaller effect sizes than when researchers or others implemented the intervention for challenging behavior. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis support using comprehensive social–emotional interventions for all children in a preschool classroom to improve their social–emotional competence and reduce challenging behavior.

scholarly journals The Effects of Foods Embedded in Entertainment Media on Children’s Food Choices and Food Intake: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Villegas-Navas ◽  
Maria-Jose Montero-Simo ◽  
Rafael A. Araque-Padilla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Food Choice ◽  
Eating Behaviors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Entertainment Media ◽  
Nutritional Values ◽  
Moderating Variables ◽  
Potential Factor ◽  
Meta Analyses

While watching or playing with media, children are often confronted with food appearances. These food portrayals might be a potential factor that affects a child’s dietary behaviors. We aimed to comprehensively expound the effects of these types of food appearances on dietary outcomes of children. Our objectives were to synthetize the evidence of the experiments that study the effects of foods embedded in children’s entertainment media throughout a systematic review, to conduct two meta-analyses (food choice and intake) in order to quantify the effects, and to examine to what extent the effects of foods embedded in entertainment media varies across different moderating variables. We conducted a systematic search of five databases for studies published up to July 2018 regarding terms related to children and foods embedded in entertainment media. We identified 26 eligible articles, of which 13 (20 effect sizes) and 7 (13 effect sizes) were considered for a meta-analysis on food choice and intake, respectively. Most of the studies were assessed as having a middle risk of bias. Overall, food being embedded in entertainment media is a strategy that affects the eating behaviors of children. As most of the embedded foods in the included studies had low nutritional values, urgent measures are needed to address the problem of childhood obesity.

Simultaneous compared to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 10+0 weeks' gestation: a systematic review with meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjsrh-2019-200448
Author(s):  
Mia Schmidt-Hansen ◽  
Jonathan Lord ◽  
Elise Hasler ◽  
Sharon Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Medical Abortion ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundMedical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol usually involves an interval of 36–48 hours between administering these drugs; however, it is possible that the clinical efficacy at early gestations may be maintained when the drugs are taken simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous compared with interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion up to 10+0 weeks’ gestation.MethodsWe searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily, and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and Cochrane Library on 11 December 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published in English from 1985, comparing simultaneous to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for early abortion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsMeta-analyses of three RCTs (n=1280) showed no differences in ‘ongoing pregnancy’ (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.36), ‘haemorrhage requiring transfusion or ≥500 mL blood loss’ (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.03) and ‘incomplete abortion with the need for surgical intervention’ (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.25) between the interventions. Individual study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction, or ‘need for repeat misoprostol’, although ‘time to onset of bleeding or cramping’ was longer after simultaneous than interval administration. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate.ConclusionThe published data support the use of simultaneous mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 9+0 weeks in women who prefer this method of administration.

scholarly journals Predicting suicidal behaviours using clinical instruments: Systematic review and meta-analysis of positive predictive values for risk scales

2017 ◽  
Vol 210 (6) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Carter ◽  
Allison Milner ◽  
Katie McGill ◽  
Jane Pirkis ◽  
Nav Kapur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Modifiable Risk Factors ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundPrediction of suicidal behaviour is an aspirational goal for clinicians and policy makers; with patients classified as ‘high risk’ to be preferentially allocated treatment. Clinical usefulness requires an adequate positive predictive value (PPV).AimsTo identify studies of predictive instruments and to calculate PPV estimates for suicidal behaviours.MethodA systematic review identified studies of predictive instruments. A series of meta-analyses produced pooled estimates of PPV for suicidal behaviours.ResultsFor all scales combined, the pooled PPVs were: suicide 5.5% (95% CI 3.9–7.9%), self-harm 26.3% (95% CI 21.8–31.3%) and self-harm plus suicide 35.9% (95% CI 25.8–47.4%). Subanalyses on self-harm found pooled PPVs of 16.1% (95% CI 11.3–22.3%) for high-quality studies, 32.5% (95% CI 26.1–39.6%) for hospital-treated self-harm and 26.8% (95% CI 19.5–35.6%) for psychiatric in-patients.ConclusionsNo ‘high-risk’ classification was clinically useful. Prevalence imposes a ceiling on PPV. Treatment should reduce exposure to modifiable risk factors and offer effective interventions for selected subpopulations and unselected clinical populations.

How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debajyoti Pati ◽  
Lesa N. Lorusso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Quality Level ◽  
Methodological Rigor ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This article provides a step-by-step approach to conducting and reporting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in the domain of healthcare design and discusses some of the key quality issues associated with SLRs. SLR, as the name implies, is a systematic way of collecting, critically evaluating, integrating, and presenting findings from across multiple research studies on a research question or topic of interest. SLR provides a way to assess the quality level and magnitude of existing evidence on a question or topic of interest. It offers a broader and more accurate level of understanding than a traditional literature review. A systematic review adheres to standardized methodologies/guidelines in systematic searching, filtering, reviewing, critiquing, interpreting, synthesizing, and reporting of findings from multiple publications on a topic/domain of interest. The Cochrane Collaboration is the most well-known and widely respected global organization producing SLRs within the healthcare field and a standard to follow for any researcher seeking to write a transparent and methodologically sound SLR. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), like the Cochrane Collaboration, was created by an international network of health-based collaborators and provides the framework for SLR to ensure methodological rigor and quality. The PRISMA statement is an evidence-based guide consisting of a checklist and flowchart intended to be used as tools for authors seeking to write SLR and meta-analyses.

scholarly journals The Efficacy of Recasts in Language Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia L. Cleave ◽  
Stephanie D. Becker ◽  
Maura K. Curran ◽  
Amanda J. Owen Van Horne ◽  
Marc E. Fey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Language Intervention ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Grammatical Development ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Study Designs

Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis critically evaluated the research evidence on the effectiveness of conversational recasts in grammatical development for children with language impairments. Method Two different but complementary reviews were conducted and then integrated. Systematic searches of the literature resulted in 35 articles for the systematic review. Studies that employed a wide variety of study designs were involved, but all examined interventions where recasts were the key component. The meta-analysis only included studies that allowed the calculation of effect sizes, but it did include package interventions in which recasts were a major part. Fourteen studies were included, 7 of which were also in the systematic review. Studies were grouped according to research phase and were rated for quality. Results Study quality and thus strength of evidence varied substantially. Nevertheless, across all phases, the vast majority of studies provided support for the use of recasts. Meta-analyses found average effect sizes of .96 for proximal measures and .76 for distal measures, reflecting a positive benefit of about 0.75 to 1.00 standard deviation. Conclusion The available evidence is limited, but it is supportive of the use of recasts in grammatical intervention. Critical features of recasts in grammatical interventions are discussed.

scholarly journals 10 easy steps to conducting transparent, reproducible meta-analyses for infant researchers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loretta Gasparini ◽  
Sho Tsuji ◽  
Christina Bergmann
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
The Body ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Robust Methods ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analytic Models

Meta-analyses provide researchers with an overview of the body of evidence in a topic, with quantified estimates of effect sizes and the role of moderators, and weighting studies according to their precision. We provide a guide for conducting a transparent and reproducible meta-analysis in the field of developmental psychology within the framework of the MetaLab platform, in 10 steps: 1) Choose a topic for your meta-analysis, 2) Formulate your research question and specify inclusion criteria, 3) Preregister and carefully document all stages of your meta-analysis, 4) Conduct the literature search, 5) Collect and screen records, 6) Extract data from eligible studies, 7) Read the data into analysis software and compute effect sizes, 8) Create meta-analytic models to assess the strength of the effect and investigate possible moderators, 9) Visualize your data, 10) Write up and promote your meta-analysis. Meta-analyses can inform future studies, through power calculations, by identifying robust methods and exposing research gaps. By adding a new meta-analysis to MetaLab, datasets across multiple topics of developmental psychology can be synthesized, and the dataset can be maintained as a living, community-augmented meta-analysis to which researchers add new data, allowing for a cumulative approach to evidence synthesis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document